CATANAUAN, QUEZON – The Supreme Court rises again to the occasion in defense of the citizen’s fundamental right of free expression when it acquitted for the crime of cyber libel a relative-critic of mayor Ramon Orfanel who accused him of allegedly receiving a ‘padulas’ or grease money for some building and business permits about the planned construction of a Jollibee branch in this town.
In its decision promulgated on Jan. 13, 2026 but was only made public last July 20, the Supreme Court (SC) through its 2nd Division has reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court and the resolution of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Jade Karla Tan Cabangon of the crime of cyber libel for failure to prove the element of actual malice beyond reasonable doubt.
The SC 2nd Division chaired by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen acted on the petition for review filed by Cabangon appealing the decision of the RTC Br. 96 of Catanauan made on May 14, 2019 and the CA resolution made on March 14, 2022 which found Cabangon guilty of the crime of cyber libel.
The SC stressed in its ruling that the country’s history has been shaped by the fundamental right of freedom of expression saying, “the people – as citizen, electors, taxpayers – have an equal stake in participative democracy, which includes holding public officials rigorously answerable to their oaths of office.”
The SC said it imposed a higher standard for criminal libel where the complainant is a public figure saying that actual malice must be proved and it is the burden of the prosecution to prove it, not the defense to disprove.
It also went on to mention the press as constant watchdog on behalf of the people that relieves the “abscesses of officialdom” with its biting scrutiny and the overarching importance of public opinion:
“Rising superior to any official, or set of officials, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary – to any of all the agencies of government – public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy.”
Orfanel’s testimony
Orfanel, mayor from 2007 to 2016, testified that sometime in 2015 he was approached by Petrona Cabangon Tan, his cousin and Jade’s mother and a Jollibee representative telling they plan to open a Jollibee branch. Construction was said to start in Sept. 2015 and slated to be finished on Dec. 8, 2015 on the day of the town fiesta.
Sometime in Jan. 2016, the mayor learned of rumors he was the reason the Jollibee branch was not built. He learned from Mary Grace Dela Torre, a municipal government employee, that Jade posted a defamatory FB post. He and his wife opened FB and saw Jade’s posts and took screenshot of it.
Orfanel claimed that he was the one being referred to by Jade’s posts, he being the mayor.
Dela Torre testified that she read Jade’s FB posts and identified Mayor Ramon Orfanel as being alluded to. She said she was present in the mayor’s office when Jade and her mother went there to apologize for the posts.
Blesilda Ramirez, also an employee, saw Jade’s posts and identified the mayor being intimated to along with using the color orange in the mayor’s election campaign.
Afterwards, Orfanel said he was called by Agdangan mayor Vicenta Aguilar, Jade’s aunt, asking for a personal meeting which he rejected and he instead filed the libel complaint at the RTC Br. 96. He said his brother convinced him to talk to Jade, Petrona and Aguilar. When they met in his office one Saturday, Jade admitted the posts and asked forgiveness. She also undertook to post a public apology on FB and to the Jollibee branch site supposed to open. He and his wife told them they would decide after the election.
During the election period, the couple initially decided to no longer pursue the case but changed their mind after an incident during that time when the couple was detained inside the municipal building. Jade’s brother, Patrick Tan, allegedly actively participated in the incident so the mayor moved to proceed with the case.
Orfanel confirmed that Jade posted an apology on Fb and in a big billboard in front of the lot of the supposed Jollibee branch to open.
RTC decision
The RTC Br. 96 of Catanauan in its decision found Jade guilty beyond reasonable doubt of cyber libel and is sentenced to suffer jail from a minimum of 4 yrs to a maximum 8 yrs. and ordered to pay a fine of P40,000.
The RTC said it found Jane’s posts to have all the elements of the crime of libel as the posts that alleged Orfanel was a corrupt public official were seen by several other persons and that the mayor was identifiable based on Jade’s use of words. As to the presence of actual malice, the RTC said Jade made the posts without verifying the veracity of her statements and also found that Jade’s act in approaching Orfanel to settle the issue and her posting of an apology are implied admissions of guilt.
Jade filed a motion for reconsideration claiming the crime charged were not proven but this was denied by the RTC in its resolution.
Appeal to CA
She appealed to the Court of Appeals saying the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; actual malice was not proven; the RTC failed to consider her public apology; and her conviction curtails freedom of expression and produces a chilling effect.
The CA affirmed the RTC decision saying that the RTC decision on May 14, 2019 and Resolution on Sept. 9, 2019 are affirmed in toto (entirely).
The CA held that the imputation that Orfanel was corrupt and that he asked for ‘padulas’ or grease money exposed him to public ridicule, humiliation and contempt.
It said the presence of actual malice is shown by the grudge that Jade bears against Orfanel as shown by the words used and factual circumstances of the publication of the posts. It claimed that while Orfanel was not directly named, he was undeniably identified as the person being referred to in the posts.
Jade filed a MR reiterating that actual malice was not proven and that the public apology should mitigate her liability and only a fine should be imposed.
She later filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Pleading where she informed the CA that she and Orfanel had entered into a compromise agreement to resolve the civil aspect of the case.
The CA in its resolution denied Jade’s MR so she filed the SC petition raising the issue that CA erred in affirming her conviction for cyber libel.
SC petition
In her SC petition, Jade said the penalty imposed by the RTC and the CA exceeded the maximum allowed by law in cyber libel and ignored the public apology she posted in FB and another public apology placed in a big billboard which could have mitigated the penalty of imprisonment or instead imposed only a fine.
Jade stressed that contrary to the CA’s finding that her action were rooted from a personal grudge against Orfanel, she said her statements were in relation to the mayor’s official functions such as issuance of licenses and permits for building and businesses hence it was not proven she made those statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they are true or not.
OSG weighs in
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also argued that all the elements for the crime of cyber libel were proven and contended that the imputation of bribery and being corrupt are sufficient. It also claimed that actual malice was proven as the words Jade’s used in her posts were uncalled for and indicated that her objective was merely to malign Orfanel and injure his reputation.
As to the public apology, the OSG said that Jade testified that she only posted the apology on FB as she was told to do so by her mother and aunt, while it was her mother who initiated the putting up of the billboard. As to the compromise agreement, the OSG claimed that it refers to the civil aspect of the case and could not extinguish the criminal liability in the case.
In its ruling, the SC stated the similarity and distinction of libel and cyber libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 10175 and stating its elements as the allegations of a discredited act or condition concerning another; publication of the charge; identity of the person defamed and existence of malice.
The SC said it finds that the first 3 elements are present but the element of malice was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating petitioner’s acquittal.
The SC said that the defamatory nature of Jade’s statements was that the person she was referring to was asking for ‘padulas’ or grease money before the necessary permits are issued which is an act or circumstance that tends to dishonor or discredit the person being referred. It said that such an allegation does not necessarily mean an accused will be found guilty of libel because there is still a need to prove the other elements of libel particularly the element of actual malice in this case.
The SC also agreed that the element of publication was satisfied as third person has read or heard the statement which included Orfanel and his wife, along with Dela Torre and Ramirez who testified to have seen the posts.
As to the identity of the person defamed, Orfanel was sufficiently identified by Dela Torre and Ramirez and the reference to orange as the color used by the mayor in his campaign materials.
The SC however stressed that the element of malice was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
SC citations
It cited the case in Tulfo vs People, where SC Associate Justice Leonen stated that criminal prosecutions for libel must ensure that the right to free expression and the press are not violated adding that “libel laws must not be broadly construed as to deter comments on public affairs and the conduct of public officials.”
It also further cited the case in Daquer vs. People where the SC acknowledged that the fundamental right of freedom of expression tempers the law on libel and that in criminal libel where the complainant is a public officer, the burden to prove actual malice rests on the prosecution and that there is no burden on the accused to disprove actual malice.
It said that jurisprudence provides that actual malice is present when statements are made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
The SC said that while Jade’s statements may be offensive, she should be acquitted of the charge of cyber libel for failure to prove the element of actual malice beyond reasonable doubt.
The SC in its ruling of acquittal also considered that Jade as the petitioner and Orfanel are relatives as they admitted in their compromise agreement; Orfanel testimony that 2 public apologies were made, with 1 posted in FB and another posted on big billboard; the compromise agreement stated that Orfanel had forgiven Jade and that the amount in the compromise agreement in the mayor’s own assessment, that the only remaining balance of the damage, loss or suffering he incurred as a result of the incident amounts to P50,000; and that petitioner has no criminal record prior to the incident.
Triumph for free expression
Former Quezon 4th District board member Atty. Sonny Pulgar posted in his Facebook account the significance of this case and the latest SC ruling describing it as “a triumph for free expression against political power”.
He said further:
“The case of Jade Carla Tan Cabangon v. People of the Philippines and Catanauan, Quezon Mayor Ramon Orfanel is an affirmation of the people’s right to speak, criticize, and question their government officials.
“It reinforces the long-standing principle that public official – and public figures generally – cannot afford to be onion-skinned. By voluntarily entering public life, they necessarily expose themselves to closer scrutiny, criticism, and even harsh commentary concerning their official conduct,” Pulgar said, adding that freedom of expression, however, is not a license to fabricate falsehoods or maliciously destroy another person’s reputation, and whether actual malice exists is ultimately a matter to be established through evidence and trial.